By interfering I mean that your ideas about certain teachings are so different from the normal way of interpreting them that the other person's viewpoint is intrinsically made to seem wrong or at least faulty.
We naturally like to believe that our thoughts are right since we are convinced by them. And then when we change how we believe, we will probably assume that how we believed before must have been wrong, since what we believe now is right.
Example: A friend of mine from Bible college days who left the faith and became an atheist said to me over lunch one day, "I'm so glad I know the truth now." I remarked back to him, "I remember you and I saying those exact same words back when we were in school together". After a long pause, he replied, "Yeah, but the difference is now I really DO have the truth".
But do we need to understand the nature of truth and belief in terms of right vs. wrong? I think that is more indicative of a mode of thinking, particularly with fundamentalist thought, which tends to be in black or white terms, be that about religious truth, or scientific truth. It's the same thing. The mode of thinking itself that sees the world in binary, dualistic terms.
Talking about ideology should I think never inflict mental pain to anyone, hence my struggle with this subject.
I suspect that most people will have the feeling that their religion or path is a fixed set of ideas and that you should not question the way that the ideological building was and still is arranged.
People like stability as it gives a sense of security and safety. But if we never left the nest, we'd never learn how to fly. Should a bird not fly in front of chicks, because they don't want to disturb their comfort?
Being made uncomfortable is not a bad thing. It can lead to growth. People live in mixed societies, at least outside isolationist groups. This has always been a source of tension for traditionalist cultures, thrown into the mix with other cultures and other ideas. Cosmopolitism, creates the birthing ground for evolution. But evolution is messy, and painful, much like childbirth.
That said, I don't think one should set out to try to evangelize that other person to convert them to a new perspective. That happens as a matter of growth. You cannot yell at your bones, "Grow, damnit!," and expect any movement. However, sheltering them from exposure to other perspectives, I see as detrimental to growth for them, or anyone.
Expose them to how you have come to perceive things now, and if they are ready, they can more readily make a change as they can know that others have done so themselves, and turned out just fine, and the stories of them eating babies were just fictions told to them to keep them fearful and locked down into place. "Don't go outside Jimmy. You'll hear other ideas and lose your faith, and God will reject you right along with them".
Last point, if they are on this discussion forum, they are choosing to be exposed to it. Expose them to it. But don't try to convert them to it. It's like the sower and the seed. Be the rain, be the nutrients of the soil, but let the seed sprout when and if it is ready.
Don't try to usurp nature. But if they are not ready, if they want to stay in the nest, then forcing them to fly could be more they are ready for. But if they are here, where many different ideas flourish, they are exposing themselves to this. It's not our job to protect them. They'll protect themselves, if they feel that distressed by seeing how others think about things differently than themselves.